Home » Intelligent Design, Religion » Flying Spaghetti Monster chronicles: Pastafarianism, born to ridicule ID, now taken seriously as religion in Europe?

Flying Spaghetti Monster chronicles: Pastafarianism, born to ridicule ID, now taken seriously as religion in Europe?

Well, they seem to act as if it is. Readers may remember that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented to ridicule ID. Then some Austrian got the prank classified as a religion. (Most religions had harder births than dealing with a puzzled bureaucrat who doesn’t understand why you sport a spaghetti strainer on your head.)

Now the European Union goes for the whole monster. Hey, did someone else come up with the slogan, We report, you decide?

Rats. Gimme sumthin’ better. Now.

Anyway:

A man who wears a sieve on his head for religious reasons has been allowed to wear his bizarre headgear on his official identity card.

Prankster Lukas Novy, from Brno in the Czech Republic, claims that his Pastafarian faith means he has to wear the sieve at all times.

Officials ruled that turning down Novy’s request would be a breach of the country’s religious equality laws.

Okay. So these people are making fun of you.

That means there must be something wrong with you. Right?

Oh wait. Lemme check my notes here.

Note: It’s not clear from the Wiki page that we would be allowed to use the image, so you have to go here to see it. Michelangelo ripoff without God, basically.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

12 Responses to Flying Spaghetti Monster chronicles: Pastafarianism, born to ridicule ID, now taken seriously as religion in Europe?

  1. Anyone who thinks that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a valid candidate for agnostic theism is not a reasonable person and it would be difficult to ever walk them through logic reason and evidence. A being made of matter can not self create nor can it create all matter/energy in the universe.

    The amazing thing is that this was never shut down when the first university professor tried to sell it to his alleged critically thinking students… How these students could ever be impressed with such an unreasonable finite construction which was NOT a candidate for a higher power we will never know…

    Perhaps it was actually agenda driven?? To fail to explain to the university professor that a being made of matter couldn’t create all matter or that noodles and tomato sauce wasn’t a reasonable candidate creator for agnostic theism (like a higher power, a deistic type creator or even the force from star wars..) Or how about an Infinite Creator that is capable of creating everything???

    No one ever explained to them the difference in concept between what was a candidate creator for agnostic theism (a being that would self-exist necessarily)and what was contingent and moved around with noodles flapping around.

    So much for intellectualism in our philosophy classrooms that teach our young people how to think reasonably…

    Question everything… especially noodles and tomato sauce being a candidate creator for anything..

  2. “The amazing thing is that this was never shut down … ” Don’t blame us. O’Leary for News.

  3. I’d take the flying spaghetti monster over Darwinian fairytales any day.

  4. Of related note, here is a very well done presentation of the

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Dr. Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJ0ED1mV7s

    although atheists have tried to hide in ‘quantum fluctuations’ in the first 10^-32 seconds of the universe to say that the universe could ‘emerge’ in an inflationary epoch (Guth), that conjecture is now refuted by Vilenkin and Mithani in 2012:

    Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning – April 2012
    Excerpt: Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.,,, They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.
    They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.
    The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.
    Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).
    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/

    Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003
    Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

    and here:

    One of cosmic (Rapid) inflation theory’s creators now questions own theory – April 2011
    Excerpt: (Rapid) Inflation adds a whole bunch of really unlikely metaphysical assumptions — a new force field that has a never-before-observed particle called the “inflaton”, an expansion faster than the speed of light, an interaction with gravity waves which are themselves only inferred– just so that it can explain the unlikely contingency of a finely-tuned big bang.
    But instead of these extra assumptions becoming more-and-more supported, the trend went the opposite direction, with more-and-more fine-tuning of the inflation assumptions until they look as fine-tuned as Big Bang theories. At some point, we have “begged the question”. Frankly, the moment we add an additional free variable, I think we have already begged the question. In a Bayesean comparison of theories, extra variables reduce the information content of the theory, (by the so-called Ockham factor), so these inflation theories are less, not more, explanatory than the theory they are supposed to replace.,,, after 20 years of work, if we haven’t made progress, but have instead retreated, it is time to cut bait.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....wn-theory/

    Moreover, if taking away inflation/’quantum fluctuation’ was not bad enough for the atheist, who would wishes that he stay ‘intellectually fulfilled’ as an atheist, further advances in Quantum Mechanics have now completely blown an atheistic/naturalistic interpretation of the universe out of the water.

    Of note, in the following video (without too much smirking), even the flying spaghetti monster himself (or is that herself?) is giving his/her due chance to explain the universe, and is found to be wanting as an adequate explanation

    Divinely Planted Quantum States – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTBygadaM4#t=156s

    Also of note, Johnny Raatz, who made the preceding video, just released another video along these lines today:

    Pick Two: The Big Bang, Naturalism, Physicalism
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBi65O-gTPU

    a few related notes to the preceding video:

    Photons and Phonons
    Excerpt: You see, the primary Planck-Law (E=hf) is metaphysical and independent on the inertia distribution of the solid states.,,,
    Both, photon and phonon carry massequivalent energy m=E/c2=hf/c2.
    The matter-light interaction so is rendered electromagnetically noninertial for the photon and becomes acoustically inertial for the phonons; both however subject to Bose-Einstein stochastic wave mechanics incorporative the Planck-Law.,,
    Where, how and why does E=hf correctly and experimentally verifiably describe the quantum mechanics of energy propagation?,,,
    http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id135.html

    Phonon
    Excerpt: In physics, a phonon,, represents an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations,,
    The name phonon,, translates as sound or voice because long-wavelength phonons give rise to sound.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

  5. #4 @ BA77
    Your atheist/evolutionist friends at facebook sent me this link for adaptations and beneficial mutations which could lead to macro_e on the old leaf eating monkey…

    http://www.nature.com/ng/journ.....ng852.html

    Do you have any links to any creationist responses to this Phillip?

  6. Breckmin,

    #4 @ BA77
    Your atheist/evolutionist friends at facebook sent me this link for adaptations and beneficial mutations which could lead to macro_e on the old leaf eating monkey…

    http://www.nature.com/ng/journ…..ng852.html

    duplication and loss of function of RNASE1 gene

    Why do people post this kind of stuff as evidence of evolution?

    I’d also be willing to bet it’s not a random change, nor selected for. Sounds like an environmental trigger.

  7. Breckmin you reference:

    Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey – 2002
    http://www.nature.com/ng/journ.....ng852.html

    and then you ask:

    “Do you have any links to any creationist responses to this Phillip?”

    No, But I do have a few questions? Was the gene duplication event accomplished ‘randomly’, as is required by neo-Darwinism, without sophisticate molecular machines implementing the duplication event?

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212

    Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
    Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

    “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
    – Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences

    And how much did non-Darwinian epigenetic mechanisms play in this duplication event?

    Epigenetics and Soft Inheritance – Challenging The Modern Synthesis – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52d5jWK1vdc

    And if you can’t show that the duplication event, and supplemental slight modification of the gene, was truly random, as is required by the atheistic version of neo-Darwinism, then why in blue blazes do you, and the ‘atheistic friends’, suppose this event presents a problem for any theory that opposes neo-Darwinism? Does any action that happens in the genome, no matter how sophisticated, always imply ‘random’ neo-Darwinian evolution in your mind? I’m sorry but that is simply ludicrous as to presupposition when sophisticated molecular machines are in fact, the ‘mechanism’ by which the change is being implemented!!

    related note:

    Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified – December 2010
    Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110103a

  8. Actually, this was a find I had never read before (and I was wrong, it wasn’t given as a beneficial mutation which could lead to macro evolution (I had to go back and read the exchange because there were so many debaters posting on so many subjects at once (like a 10 to 1 ratio) instead it was given in response to the overall deleterious nature of mutations and the loss of information (“the more mutations – the more information that is going to be lost” – concept/point I was making).
    I suspected it was one of those poor examples of adaptation or reaction to environment (which is then extrapolated into more than it is with respect to evolving) but to cite the article:

    Nature Genetics 30, 411 – 415 (2002)
    Published online: 4 March 2002; | doi:10.1038/ng852
    Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey
    Jianzhi Zhang1, 2, Ya-ping Zhang3 & Helene F. Rosenberg

    We show that RNASE1B has evolved rapidly under positive selection for enhanced ribonucleolytic activity in an altered microenvironment, a response to increased demands for the enzyme for digesting bacterial RNA. At the same time, the ability to degrade double-stranded RNA, a non-digestive activity characteristic of primate RNASE1, has been lost in RNASE1B, indicating functional specialization and relaxation of purifying selection.

    I searched for various past responses at the usual AIG and ICR type sites but didn’t find anything. (re: evolved rapidly)

    In my brief exchange with these debaters (much to my surprise) there was an incredible amount of personal attacks made against John Sanford (particularly his analogy/metaphor involving Jesus dying on the Cross and any comparison to genetic entropy).

    I’ve been out of the evolution/creation debate for about 3 or four years…things have become far less civil in these types of interactions.

    The climate has certainly changed since ID has risen to challenge what is assumed/concluded rather than observed.

    Thanks for your links (for all of them)… I do read and learn from them.

  9. Just pour boiling water in his sieve while he is wearing it. Problem solved…

  10. “”Readers may remember that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented to ridicule ID. Then some Austrian got the prank classified as a religion.”"”"

    I find it highly annoying whenever some village atheist tries to create an ontological equivalence between God of Abraham and “FSM” or “Tooth Fairy” or “Santa Clause”…or insert atheist straw-man here……..

    When confronted with this cliche argument from atheists; I always flip it around back on them and demand that they build a positive case and demonstrate how these metaphysical caricatures might somehow be logically equivalent to the God of Abraham. I always tell them I don’t believe in such absurd things as FSM, but since they believe such an individual thing is the exact same thing as “God”; and therefore, whatever convention ought to be able to explain in the way God explains – demand that they tell you about it; ask them where they are getting their information. I also enjoy it particularly when they use some other God, “Zeus”(who was posited to exist within the universe) or “Vishnu” of Hinduism, etc – and you can start calling them out on contradictory claims in the context of ultimate reality; and ask them why they are dumb enough to believe that God of Abraham and “Vishnu” are “the same thing”.

    In order for FSM to be equivalent to GOD, FSM must explain reality in exactly the same way as Christianity does – demand where they are getting their information from; “Where is the book of the FSM?” How are you obtaining this information? Flipping it around on them is quite entertaining, typically however, I find that most likely response if it goes that far is a sudden changing of the subject.

  11. #10 DinoV

    When confronted with this cliche argument from atheists; I always flip it around back on them and demand that they build a positive case and demonstrate how these metaphysical caricatures might somehow be logically equivalent to the God of Abraham.

    Better yet have them provide a step by step cumulative case argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a pink unicorn or the tooth fairy like evidential apologetics can do for the God of Abraham (connect agnostic theism (which comes AFTER ID btw)to the God of Abraham).

    In all fairness, however, you can’t expect atheists to think like systematic theologians because they/many have been completely diseducated on these issues by university professors and authors who did not know contemporary responses in apologetics which would answer the objection.

    Case in point: Foundational truth funneled up through a cumulative case argument rather than circular presuppostional apologetics.

  12. “Better yet have them provide a step by step cumulative case argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a pink unicorn or the tooth fairy like evidential apologetics can do for the God of Abraham.”

    LOL – no doubt. I don’t have any mercy on them though; they should recognize this tactic as the strawman for what it is. This Craig retort always causes me to chuckle, its just an epic retort.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go6m-KNUmG4

Leave a Reply